Are We Heading For A Recession Like In The 30s?

[alchresearch]

14 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Lots of those people voted Tory (I know many in the music industry), so I don't think that faction can really complain now they fall victim to their policies. The rest can though of course.

 

Worth noting that the above Tories I refer to have stated they will never vote for them again now they have been shafted. What that translates to under FPTP in the next election I don't know though.

I think so many voted Tory in the last election just to give Labour the bloody nose it needed to see sense and get rid of Corbyn.    Once Stamer or his successor settle in,  and Brexit is gone and finished I think we should see a comfortable Labour victory in 2024.

[Anna B]

21 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Lots of those people voted Tory (I know many in the music industry), so I don't think that faction can really complain now they fall victim to their policies. The rest can though of course.

 

Worth noting that the above Tories I refer to have stated they will never vote for them again now they have been shafted. What that translates to under FPTP in the next election I don't know though.

 

No-one has really paid in to get something out though - we don't have a welfare state in my opinion because we don't pay anywhere near the levels of income tax they do in European countries where they do have good welfare states. You get what you pay for.

I think someone did a study, and when you add up ALL the taxes we pay, including  things like road tax, VAT, Council tax,  and other hidden taxes as well as income tax, it works out we pay nearly as much as the Scandinavian countries for much less in return.

5 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

I think so many voted Tory in the last election just to give Labour the bloody nose it needed to see sense and get rid of Corbyn.    Once Stamer or his successor settle in,  and Brexit is gone and finished I think we should see a comfortable Labour victory in 2024.

What's the point of a Labour victory if it's merely a quasi Tory party that will not change anything for the people? We'll be back where we started howling for change, which is what led to the rise of Corbyn in the first place.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Anna B

[andyofborg]

34 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

What's the point of a Labour victory if it's merely a quasi Tory party that will not change anything for the people? We'll be back where we started howling for change, which is what led to the rise of Corbyn in the first place.

The point is that an incoming Labour government offers the hope of at least marginal competence. Whatever change people wanted it's clear that Mr. Corbyn and his ilk do not represent the change which people wanted and that's been clear for 40 years. Anyway, maybe this part of the discussion belongs in another thread. 

 

[nightrider]

48 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

The point is that an incoming Labour government offers the hope of at least marginal competence. Whatever change people wanted it's clear that Mr. Corbyn and his ilk do not represent the change which people wanted and that's been clear for 40 years. Anyway, maybe this part of the discussion belongs in another thread. 

 

Polling data showed that with a different leader and identical manifesto they would have won far more seats. But they still would have lost. So policies would also need to shift away from the left to get a win I think. Its unclear if under Starmer they would to the latter.

[ECCOnoob]

I feel like I am stating the obvious. But since when has paying into the system given anyone an automatic right to receive a payout. It simply doesn't work like that.

 

There are some unfortunate people who have paid into the system all their life and never had a penny out.   Other people have never paid in whatsoever but received benefits continually. 

 

Whatever the arguments, benefits should only ever be for those who genuinely NEED it.  It's irrelevant how long or how much someone is paying into the system.  

 

Ultimately, if someone has savings, assets or other funds available it's only right that they should use those first before seeking any government handout.

 

I'm sure it is upsetting for someone who suddenly loses their job or gets into poverty to see their hard earned savings or car or house fritter away on costs of living but such is life.  That why people have savings and investments.   Until such time as they have nothing else why should the get benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere.  Otherwise we would end up with benefit claimants sat with £200k savings, a villa in Marbella and a  Merc in the drive. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[L00b]

On 6 October 2020 at 02:38, Anna B said:

Your thoughts?

(a) not the right thread for it, really

 

(b) broadly in agreement with Eco above as a matter of principle, but not so about as a matter of practice (by now, the UK system is grossly defunded and too biased towards denying any assistance by default)

 

(c) people are getting the governance they deserve

 

And with delectable irony, all the people who voted Cobservative at the GE for fear of Corbynomics, are now getting leftier policies under the Conservatives and yet, when looking at Johnson government's approval ratings (mid to high 40s last time I looked?),  seem happy with the fact. Nowt funnier than folks, eh! 

[tzijlstra]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

I think someone did a study, and when you add up ALL the taxes we pay, including  things like road tax, VAT, Council tax,  and other hidden taxes as well as income tax, it works out we pay nearly as much as the Scandinavian countries for much less in return.

I can categorically state that this is not true. The tax pressure in the UK is significantly lower than in Nordic countries. The Netherlands is comparatively cheap when put next to Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, but compared to the UK It is very expensive. Here's a simple one - Healthcare in the Netherlands for a family of 4 is around 350 Euros a month and then you still have 'personal excess fees', personal income tax is higher than it is in the UK, council tax is more expensive, there is an additional monthly fee for 'watership management' and so on. 

 

The UK is the most capitalist/low tax nation in (or now out of) the EU that I know of, bar maybe Cyprus. 

[catmiss]

The last recession seemed to be felt most keenly by the north of the country, possibly exacerbating the effects of the loss of traditional industries during Mrs Thatcher’s reign and not adequately addressed by Tony Blair’s government. I wonder if all the Tory MPs elected last time by disillusioned northerners will fight their corner in Boris’ government 

[Anna B]

11 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I feel like I am stating the obvious. But since when has paying into the system given anyone an automatic right to receive a payout. It simply doesn't work like that.

 

There are some unfortunate people who have paid into the system all their life and never had a penny out.   Other people have never paid in whatsoever but received benefits continually. 

 

Whatever the arguments, benefits should only ever be for those who genuinely NEED it.  It's irrelevant how long or how much someone is paying into the system.  

 

Ultimately, if someone has savings, assets or other funds available it's only right that they should use those first before seeking any government handout.

 

I'm sure it is upsetting for someone who suddenly loses their job or gets into poverty to see their hard earned savings or car or house fritter away on costs of living but such is life.  That why people have savings and investments.   Until such time as they have nothing else why should the get benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere.  Otherwise we would end up with benefit claimants sat with £200k savings, a villa in Marbella and a  Merc in the drive. 

I agree, I don't like but can accept your reasoning on those with savings, but the point is many people who genuinely need help are simply not getting it, hence the rise in foodbank use and ultimately the increasing problem of homelessness. I don't think you can get more needy than that. Once you disappear down that particular rabbit hole, it's very very difficult to climb out. And don't get me started on the poor treatment of people with disabilities and mental illness. The draconian system that is Universal Credit is something they just can't cope with. If they didn't have mental problems at the start, they will have by the time they've tried to navigate the rules, regulations, delays and pitfalls of this unwieldy bureaucratic mess.    

 

Working your way out is not an option when the jobs are simply not there, and 200 applicants for every job suggest this to be the case. Discrimination against the older or disabled worker doesn't help. What work there is often tends to be problematic in itself with 0 hour contracts,  short term contracts, the'gig' economy, poor prospects etc.

 

This is supposed to be a rich country, yet how we are treating our poorest citizens and vulnerable people in need is shameful. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Anna B

[alchresearch]

21 hours ago, Anna B said:

What's the point of a Labour victory if it's merely a quasi Tory party that will not change anything for the people? We'll be back where we started howling for change, which is what led to the rise of Corbyn in the first place.

So Labour 1997-2010 didn't change anything for the people and for the better?

 

You need to start accepting that Labour party you want is dead. People have moved on and there are more centrist Labour supporters than Corbynistas.

 

Remember "for the many, not the few"?  That applies to the party too.